US Pre-Clearance at Dublin & Shannon

Creative83

I am amazed that this privilege is only afforded in five other countries...


From Wikipedia:


'Today, CBP has more than 600 law enforcement officers and agriculture specialists stationed at 15 air Preclearance locations in 6 countries: Dublin and Shannon in Ireland; Aruba; Freeport and Nassau in The Bahamas; Bermuda; Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; and Calgary, Toronto, Edmonton, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, and Winnipeg in Canada. CBP also staffs a Pre-inspection facility for passenger/vehicle ferry traffic to the U.S. in Victoria, Canada.'



It is fantastic that after a long flight you can just walk out the door. The UK don't even have this type of agreement.


Why do we get this benefit? Is it to with with JFK and all or do they just love the Irish

nuac

Great idea.

Have availed of it out of Shannon to Boston.

TheValeyard

Probably a thank you for letting all those thousands of US troops stop over here on their way to completely fcuk up Iraq and help create Isis.

Creative83

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Probably a thank you for letting all those thousands of US troops stop over here on their way to completely fcuk up Iraq and help create Isis.

No, it's been there for at least a decade before... nice try though

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Nothing to do with JFK. It was a payback, initially for Shannon, for use of the airport by US military craft.

Creative83

Clayton Savory Wheat wrote: »

Nothing to do with JFK. It was a payback, initially for Shannon, for use of the airport by US military craft.

Have you an online resource to back that up?

branie2

I used this when I flew from Dublin to Boston in 2015

Father Hernandez

Creative83 wrote: »

I am amazed that this privilege is only afforded in five other countries...


From Wikipedia:


'Today, CBP has more than 600 law enforcement officers and agriculture specialists stationed at 15 air Preclearance locations in 6 countries: Dublin and Shannon in Ireland; Aruba; Freeport and Nassau in The Bahamas; Bermuda; Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; and Calgary, Toronto, Edmonton, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, and Winnipeg in Canada. CBP also staffs a Pre-inspection facility for passenger/vehicle ferry traffic to the U.S. in Victoria, Canada.'



It is fantastic that after a long flight you can just walk out the door. The UK don't even have this type of agreement.


Why do we get this benefit? Is it to with with JFK and all or do they just love the Irish

Cause we're a great bunch of lads

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Creative83 wrote: »

No, it's been there for at least a decade before... nice try though

1986 and USAF were using Shannon for refuelling for a few years at this point.

TheValeyard

Creative83 wrote: »

No, it's been there for at least a decade before... nice try though

Preinspection was 1986

Think the customs changes were 2009 and 2011.

TheValeyard

Clayton Savory Wheat wrote: »

1986 and USAF were using Shannon for refuelling for a few years at this point.

Ah so we helped them out for Oil War One, before the 2003 sequel?

Creative83

Clayton Savory Wheat wrote: »

1986 and USAF were using Shannon for refuelling for a few years at this point.

So what? Unless you have something to back up your assertion it is just merely opinion

TheValeyard

Creative83 wrote: »

So what? Unless you have something to back up your assertion it is just merely opinion

Tis an awful handy service though. Used it a fair few times.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Creative83 wrote: »

So what? Unless you have something to back up your assertion it is just merely opinion

So nothing.

I have no opinion or problem with them using Shannon whatsoever. Just stating the reasons given at the time. Not my assertion but what was stated thirty years ago. It was also suggested that it would help early identification of potential terror risks. Don't know why you have such an issue with that explanation.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Tis an awful handy service though. Used it a fair few times.

Me too. And having experienced the set up before this, it's absolutely marvellous.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Ah so we helped them out for Oil War One, before the 2003 sequel?

US activity in the Gulf has been considerable since the 70s.

Creative83

Clayton Savory Wheat wrote: »

So nothing.

I have no opinion or problem with them using Shannon whatsoever. Just stating the reasons given at the time. Not my assertion but what was stated thirty years ago. It was also suggested that it would help early identification of potential terror risks. Don't know why you have such an issue with that explanation.

Well once you can provide a reference that pre-clearance here is because of the US military use of Shannon... until then you haven't a leg to stand on... just spouting unsubstantiated nonsense

Trigger Happy

Creative83 wrote: »

Well once you can provide a reference that pre-clearance here is because of the US military use of Shannon... until then you haven't a leg to stand on... just spouting unsubstantiated nonsense

Except that he is right. It was reported at the time. No internet back then so hard to reference.
Get yourself down to a newspaper archive and look it up.

JeffKenna

Smoking area downstairs is handy in Shannon. Nothing I love more than a pre clearance pint and cigarette.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Creative83 wrote: »

Well once you can provide a reference that pre-clearance here is because of the US military use of Shannon... until then you haven't a leg to stand on... just spouting unsubstantiated nonsense

I read it and heard it on radio and tv at the time. Go look it up yourself so, and tell us what the reason is. Didn't you ask for the reason in the first place?

Icemancometh

It's great for internal US transfers too because you land at a domestic terminal

I have a couple of friends working in that industry in a couple of different countries and asked them about it. Actually the idea of doing it in a lot of different airports has been bounced around for a while now, but apparently the problem usually comes back down to the size of the airport. The big ones that do most of the trans atlantic flights simply don't have the space to accommodate this. US customs and security is a fairly big operation after all, and when you compare the size of Shannon versus the number of passengers it handles (feels like being on a desert island!) to the size/passenger numbers of Heathrow where you feel like a sardine you can see why.

Creative83

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Except that he is right. It was reported at the time. No internet back then so hard to reference.
Get yourself down to a newspaper archive and look it up.

Are you having a laugh? He made the assertion and it's up to me to back his assertion up?!?l. The onus is on him my friend. Until then it is just conjecture

Trigger Happy

Creative83 wrote: »

Are you having a laugh? He made the assertion and it's up to me to back his assertion up?!?l. The onus is on him my friend. Until then it is just conjecture

He did not make anything up, he is right.

Ubbquittious

Most countries you don't need any pre clearance nonsense to get into. As usual it's the States trying to let on how special of a country they are subjecting everyone to an elaborate rigmarole before they get the privilege to come in

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Creative83 wrote: »

Are you having a laugh? He made the assertion and it's up to me to back his assertion up?!?l. The onus is on him my friend. Until then it is just conjecture

I made no assertion in the slightest. You asked a question and I answered it based on the explanations given at the time. You seem to have an issue with the answer for some reason. Why ask if you didn't want to hear what we were told? Carry on and perhaps let us know why you asked but seem to have an answer of your own hidden away somewhere.
I'm done trying to justify an explanation that is not my own but purely offered in good faith.

Good luck.

Creative83

Clayton Savory Wheat wrote: »

I made no assertion in the slightest. You asked a question and I answered it based on the explanations given at the time. You seem to have an issue with the answer for some reason. Why ask if you didn't want to hear what we were told? Carry on and perhaps let us know why you asked but seem to have an answer of your own hidden away somewhere.
I'm done trying to justify an explanation that is not my own but purely offered in good faith.

Good luck.

You haven't backed up your claim in the slightest. Until you do then it is pure hear/say on your part

riffmongous

I found this linked on wiki, Dail debate from June '86.. but I'll be f'ed if I'm reading through all that for ye

https://web.archive.org/web/20071126045759/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0367/D.0367.198606060003.html

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Creative83 wrote: »

You haven't backed up your claim in the slightest. Until you do then it is pure hear/say on your part

Would you just listen to yourself? "If I can't have a link to something I refuse to accept it". Fine, as I already said, look it up then and why did you ask if there must be a link somewhere to give the answer you want.
I couldn't care less if you accept the answer or not. I have no vested interest either way. I'm making nothing up but you seem to think I am for some reason.


I'm out of this farce.

Pkiernan

Not sure why dumb people think having to arrive 3 hours earlier for you flight is better than 45 minutes at immigration in the US.

I think would be illegal immigrants prefer it in case they get caught though.

Manic Moran

Pkiernan wrote: »

Not sure why dumb people think having to arrive 3 hours earlier for you flight is better than 45 minutes at immigration in the US.

I think would be illegal immigrants prefer it in case they get caught though.

That’s if it’s only 45 minutes. For casual flyers, it can be a lot longer.